**poll**

In article <byoderD3rMFI.MLD at netcom.com>,
Brian K. Yoder <byoder at netcom.com> wrote:
>>> Close... but instead of taxing to make up the short fall, they cut the
>>> federal government back to what it was intended for... national defense.
>>Almost there; the _federales_ should, optimally;
>> 1. Print the money,
>Why? Have they not demonstrated their inability to do that effectively?
>Private banking would be able to do it just as easily and reliably.
Perhaps, but then we'd have several national currencies and a
complete mess with the exchange rates. The important part
of this federal power isn't so much the actual printing of
money but the "regulate the Value thereof" part.
>> 2. Raise the Army.
>No police? I agree that police activities should primarily be a state
>and local matter, but there are some things beyond their scope (such as
>keeping track of folks like those WTC bombers for example, or international
>crime gangs and their operations here) as well as coordinating interstate
>manhunts and so on (and maintaining fingerprint databases and so on).
As far as the Constitution is concerned, there is essentially
no federal power for any sort of police activities. The only
exceptions are for things like customs, immigration and
naturalization, etc. By a very loose reading, you could
interpret some things as implying police powers, but these
are a better justification for federal investigators rather
than arrest-making police. This isn't too surprising since
the people who wrote the Constitution didn't trust a
federal government at all and wanted to keep law enforcement
on the state and local level. More to the point, professional
police didn't even exist back then; the first appeared in the
1830s.
Frank Crary
CU Boulder